Agenda item

To consider the application to divert an unrecorded footpath at Church Lane, Wistaston

The Committee considered a report which detailed an application from Gladman Developments Ltd requesting the Council to make an Order under Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to divert an Unrecorded Footpath on land off Church Lane, Wistaston.

In accordance with Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 the Borough Council, as Planning Authority, can make an Order diverting a public right of way if it was satisfied that it was necessary to do so to enable development to be carried out in accordance with a planning permission that had been applied for or granted.

Planning approval had been granted for an outline application for a proposed residential development of up to 300 dwellings, site access, public open space, landscaping and associated infrastructure – planning reference 14/3024N.

The footpath was not currently recorded on the Definitive Map, but was the subject of a Definitive Map Modification Order application, which had been submitted in July 2015 by Mr FP Alcock.

The Committee, at its last meeting, had deferred making a decision on an   application to divert the Unrecorded Footpath to allow residents to negotiate with the developers on the position of the proposed diversion and to allow for advice and clarity to be sought from the planning officer regarding the diversion and whether it complied with the conditioned plans.

Following the meeting, the Applicant had met with one of the Ward Councillors and a representative from the local residents.  This had resulted in a second application being submitted, which had amended the proposed diversion so that the section of footpath running easterly from Public Footpath No.1 to points E and F would now run behind the houses on Church Lane – as shown as J-K-L on Plan TCPA/038(2), and within a green corridor which would be made up of a 3 metre wide tarmacked path within a 6 metre wide green zone with private drives to the north and the connecting properties facing southerly onto the drives and the footpath.

The remaining part of the proposed diversion would remain the same as the previous application.  The intent of which was to retain the nature of the claimed path as a circular route with the northern and western lengths still running through an undeveloped green zone, although the southern alignment would be more urban in character. 

Councillor M Simon, Ward Councillor, thanked the Committee for their decision to defer the application as further discussions with Gladman had resulted in an amended plan which local residents were happy with.  She thanked Gladman for their support and co-operation in assisting them to reach a resolution that couldn’t have led to a better outcome.  In addition she had been asked by Peter Wainwright who attended the last meeting to seek clarification in respect of the bowling green hedge which currently was maintained by the bowling club.  As a result of the proposal one side of the hedge would be in the footpath area and therefore Mr Wainwright was querying who would be responsible for maintaining that side of the hedge.

Mr Kevin Waters of Gladman Developments Ltd spoke in support of the application and stated that the principle point of objection related to part of the route to the North of properties J-L.  Gladman had met with Councillor M Simon and local residents in order to address the issues.  As a result of further discussion part of the route was amended and the remainder of the route was unchanged.  Gladman were pleased with the feedback received. 

Daniel Evans, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the revised proposal satisfied the relevant planning condition.  He confirmed a housebuilder had now been selected which would now make a significant contribution to the Council’s housing supply.  In respect of Councillor
M Simon’s query relating to the hedge he confirmed it would be the responsibility of one of the two landowners.

Consultation had been carried out on the second application.  The Ward Councillors had been consulted and responded to say that the amended application had taken account of residents’ wishes and that the proposed diversion was acceptable. 

Daniel Evans, Principal Planning Officer for Cheshire East Council, had been consulted as the officer involved with the planning process for the application.  He considered that on balance this proposal meets the requirements of planning condition 16 of the planning permission, which required that a scheme of pedestrian and cycle provision through the site shall be substantially in accordance with the Footpaths and Cycleways plan approved by the Planning Inspector.  However, he believed that the revised layout offered a number of disadvantages to the existing residents of Church Lane.  These being that they would have dwellings facing into their rear boundaries rather than backing on; there would be vehicular movements along the private drives to the rear of their houses and that the footpath to the rear would allow users to walk along the rear boundaries of their properties.

Mr Griffith, a resident of Church Lane, had raised several queries regarding the details of the proposed development as he was concerned about privacy and security.  Gladman Developments Ltd had responded directly to him to say that these elements would be part of the reserved matters planning application and expected that neighbouring residents would be consulted at that time.

Mr Alcock, the applicant for the Definitive Map Modification Order, had responded to say that the amended route was very similar to the route put forward in his application and he assumed that the opportunity to comment on details such as levels, planting, surface finish and enclosures would be available at the reserved matters stage.  He therefore had no objections to the amended proposal.

Mr Weaver who lives at an adjacent property on Church Lane had rung in to say that he was concerned about the likelihood of dog fouling issues arising on the footpath to the rear and wished to know about the future maintenance of the footpath. He was not objecting to the proposal.

The Committee considered the application and concluded that it would be necessary to divert the Unrecorded Footpath to allow for the construction of 300 houses and associated infrastructure as detailed within planning reference 14/3024N.  The Unrecorded Footpath would be directly affected by the proposed housing and road network.  It was considered that the legal tests for the making and confirming of a Diversion Order under section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 were satisfied.

The Committee unanimously

RESOLVED:  That

1        An Order be made under Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to divert the Unrecorded Footpath on land off Church Lane, Wistaston, as illustrated on Plan No. TCPA/038(2), on the grounds that the Borough Council is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in order to enable development to be carried out.

2        Public Notice of the making of the Order is given and in the event of there being no objections within the period specified, the Order be confirmed in the exercise of the powers conferred on the Council by the said Acts.

3        In the event of objections to the Order being received and not resolved, Cheshire East Borough Council be responsible for the conduct of any hearing or public inquiry.